Trial court ignored settled principles: Delhi High Court cancels bail of man accused of murdering wife

While cancelling the bail of a man accused of allegedly killing his wife, the Delhi High Court recently held that the trial court should not have lost sight of the enshrined principles of bail including the consideration of the seriousness of the offence [Rohtash Singh v. State]..Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri was acting on a plea filed by the deceased woman’s father seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the accused husband by a Delhi Sessions Court.“Coming now to the impugned order, it is noted that the same was passed ignoring the well settled principles of bail. At the time of passing of the impugned order, learned Judge has failed to appreciate the gravity and seriousness of the offence and the same came to be passed on erroneous and extraneous reasons,” the High Court said..Justice Ohri further pointed out,“Though the trial had not proceeded expeditiously, and there were no allegations of tampering with the evidence against respondent husband, the Trial Court ought not have lost sight of the enshrined principles of bail including the gravity and seriousness of offence.”.The father’s plea stated that his daughter was subjected to dowry demands and died at her matrimonial house on November 18, 2018. As per the complaint, the deceased had visited the parental home on bhai dhuj, on which occasion they demanded ₹6 lakh from her. She had expressed her fear that in case of non-fulfilment of the demand, the family members would kill her.The petitioner informed the Court that the trial court had framed charges of murder and other offences against the accused on September 13, 2019. It was argued that during grant of bail, the grave charges were not considered in addition to the fact that there were allegations under Section 304B (dowry death) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as the incident took place within four months of the marriage..The defence counsel, however, stressed there were no allegations pertaining to either influencing of the prosecution witnesses or tampering with the evidence against the man. It was also submitted that though this the High Court had on January 30, 2020 directed the trial court to complete the trial expeditiously, till now only two witnesses had been examined and the trial was not likely to conclude any time soon..The High Court noted that after a medical opinion revealed that the deceased suffered head injuries, Section 302 (murder) of IPC was added. WhatsApp chats placed on record showed that the deceased feared for her life on account of demand of dowry from her parents-in-law. Her death was initially ruled as a suicide and post-mortem report revealed that she was one and a half months pregnant at the time of her death.“Keeping in view the aforesaid and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside and respondent No. 2 (husband) is directed to surrender before the jail authorities concerned,” the High Court ordered..Advocate Prashant Manchanda represented the petitioner.Additional Public Prosecutor Meenakshi Chauhan appeared for the State.Advocate Ravin Rao argued for the accused..[Read Order]